>"Guys, I got a 64-bit computer!">came preinstalled with 32-bit Windows XP.Why did literally any distributor do this?
>>107823385It was mostly only on x86 and turning the 32 to 64 transition.
>>107823385XP64 lagged behind in drivers, specially for cheaper and budget hardware so it made sense in the average consumer marketby the time this wasn't an issue anymore, vista was already a thing
>>107823402also the 4gb memory limitation wasn't a problem on the consumer market turning that period
>>107823385it was a gigantic meme, you couldnt even install 4gb ram on a 754 board, and even if you installed a 64 bit os, exclusive 64 bit applications wouldnt be normal for another decade
>>107823402Couldn't you just use 32-bit drivers?>>107823410It's only a problem if you're running a 32-bit computer.>>107823412>even if you installed a 64 bit os, exclusive 64 bit applications wouldnt be normal for another decadeYes, but this version I am speaking of is XP that is specifically backwards compatible with 32-bit. ("Windows XP Professional x64 Edition" [x86_64], not "Windows XP x64 Edition" [IA-64 Itanium processors only]). The naming scheme is confusing and ridiculous, but there is a difference.>754 boardWhat is that?
>>107823491>"Windows XP x64 Edition" [IA-64 Itanium processors only]Or I guess they called that one "Windows XP 64-*Bit* Edition", the naming differences are so subtle it's pretty much stupid.
>>107823491754 was the first socket for the athlon 64, 478 and 462 only supported 32 bit at that time. Most boards had 2 slots for 1gb ddr dimms, some had 3, and 939 sometimes had 4, but it would not be until 775 and AM2 (2+ years later) that you could install more than 4gb of ram to take advantage of 64 bit memory paths
>>107823519I guess Microsoft was too ahead of their time. Who did they even make this for, then?
>>107823519Also, was PCI (or otherwise) RAM expansion possible during that time?
>>107823491>Couldn't you just use 32-bit drivers?No.
>>107823385try *using* XP64, then get back to me.it'll run, but most anything plugged into usb won't. If I'd been a PC manufacturer/distributor, I'd have done the exact same thing. Until the thanks for pre-installing x64 (none) outweigh the complaints (shitloads), let someone else play guinea pig. As noted above, think Vista followed fairly shortly afterwards anyway.
>>107823531Made what? Their "consumer 64bit OS" came out in 2005 and never gained traction or support. Everything else 64bit was enterprise. 64bit was only lagging behind on the x86 consumer market, otherwise it had been a thing for decades. Mac OS X at the same time was 64bit by default already by then.
>>10782338564 bits on XP buy you literally nothing.
>>107823569Why not?>As noted above, think Vista followed fairly shortly afterwards anyway.They pretty much released that at the same time XPx64 came out, I can't believe Microsoft did another "Windows ME", and Vista was supposed to be the one that sucked, lol.
>>107823578This.>it'll run, but most anything plugged into usb won't.XP x64 works fine though if you have hardware that supports it. But hardware support for it wasn't widespread, specially on the consumer market at that time.
>>107823569>>107823606God damn, I'm too sleep deprived for this.
>>107823606>Why not?Because they are compiled for a 32bit kernel.
>>10782338564bit windows didn't make sense until vista.
>>107823613And their x86_64-bit XP wasn't backwards compatible enough to run 32 bit drivers?...
>>107823531>>107823596Server and Workstationx64 XP was stuff bolted on from the Server 2003 codebase. Eventually Microsoft would drop the spaghetti Longhorn codebase for Vista and instead use the stable Server 2003 code as the foundation.
>>107823626What do you mean? All drivers, be it Windows, Linux or macOS have to be compiled for the architecture of the kernel to work. Nothing to do with backwards compatibility.
>>107823607I wanted to do something similar by installing XP x64 on an Optiplex from 2009 for gaming.
>>107823626No because WoWand the HAL don’t work that way
>>107823635You're talking to someone who used a Windows 7 computer for about a decade while installing everything 32-bit, before even realizing the computer and OS were 64-bit. Why couldn't I have done the same with XP x64? Was Microsoft just *that* bad at making it?
I got a shitty little netbook for taking notes and using the browser in class that came with WinXP 32bit and it took me well over a decade to realize it's a 64bit system unlike the OS, repurposed it as a linux server.
>>107823612Then go fuck yourself.
>>10782365532bit programs will work finewe're talking about drivers, you can't use 32bit windows 7 drivers with 64bit windows 7 either and vice versa
>>107823669What the fuck is your problem, migger?!
>>107823669Masturbation isn't always the answer.
>>107823607No rapelay or other old illusion games, I'm disappointed!
>>107823547not to my knowledge, or at least for desktop applications. i asked about an adapter to install multiple laptop dimms into a desktop dimm, using expresscard for graphics, on many forums and was laughed out of the room, this now appears to be a common thing you can buy now. pci was very slow and not suitable for performance enhancement>>107823531servers>>107823596macos was powerpc and ditched that for 32bit intel in 2005, apple didnt stop supporting 32bit osx until 2015
>>107823669Rude, OP
>>107823671Damn I guess I never noticed, especially since I was an actual child back then and probably never did anything with drivers.I blame it on Windows 7 apparently using the 32-bit version of Internet Explorer by default, so everything I downloaded that branched off of it, like Java which autodetects your browser and gives you the version of file you supposedly need, ended up being 32-bit instead. Why the hell did they even make the 32-bit browser the default one?...
>>107823661You used a netbook for a Linux server?
>>107823701He isn't even the OP lol, I am.
>>107823626drivers themselves have to support being told 64 bit memory address paths, and by the time mainstream drivers supported 64 bit paths, they also had extra features for vista that made backwards compatibility with 2003 problematic. this was not a problem on microsofts behalf
>>107823700>serversI guess using Itanium processors only for 64-bit was too short lived even for Microsoft, and I guess Windows Server didn't give them enough variety, lol.
>>107823721Basically just to host a file server, yes.
>>107823743So how is this not an issue with running a 32-bit OS (like standard XP) on 64-bit hardware?...
>>107823750the problem was itanium wasn't compatible with x86 at all, it was its own architecture that just happened to have a 64 bit memory pathway, microsoft supported this architecture due to support agreements, most notably HP
>>107823519There are Socket 939 boards which support 8GB RAM. I own one, namely the Abit UL8. 2GB DDR DIMMs weren't common, but they do exist.
>>107823767I realize that, I always thought the Itanium deal they had was impractical.
>>107823700>macos was powerpc and ditched that for 32bit intel in 2005, apple didnt stop supporting 32bit osx until 2015Apple was already using 64bit PPC before they transitioned to Intel. Do you think only x86 has 64bit?
>>107823765because the architecture for the cpu is a agreed upon standard that allows anything else written to that standard to run on it, the "driver" for the cpu is inherent to the code itself in the 70s and 80s before we had established standards, you had to code your programs to run on certain cpus due to limitations of each design, it was a massive pain. you might notice that since windows 10 1709 the default display adapter driver is much improved, but at the same time many legacy cards are broken and incompatible, this is due to a lack of standardization in gpu architecture that is incompatible with how Microsoft now utilizes graphics cards
>>107823788it was, and it ended up costing intel and microsoft a small fortune
>>107823833And I guess if the kernel is 32-bit, it would still work on a x86_64 expansion card too...I still think Microsoft could've done better with XP x64, though.>>107823864Lol, Microsoft DEFINITELY could've done better XD
>>107823607What kind of graphics card are you using?
>>107824095https://desuarchive.org/g/search/image/5U8Rc186K3ZBKEl43_pRLw/anon it's the same picture being repostedthe newest card that can work with xp is the 780ti
x64 Windows XP is very difficult to use due to being early days.I built a PC (after XP's sunsetting) that ran x64 XP so I could run it with 8GB of RAM in an effort to build the most elite XP-era PC I could only to find it felt very spotty to use. I ended up downgrading to 4GB and installing MCE 2005 after hitting too many roadblocks.
>>107824187>anon it's the same picture being repostedI only noticed that after I asked :(>the newest card that can work with xp is the 780tiWhat about with AMD?
>>107824214If I can't get XP x64 to work on my gaming Optiplex I want to use, I might as well just use Vista, then.Imagine being AMD back in 2001:>Chat, we made a processor that is completely useless, and will still be for the next several years! :D
>>107824281radeon 7xxx series, but i had serious issues trying to play games in a E350 (hd 6xxx series) when i installed xp on it realistically there's not a lot of games that work on xp that dont work on 7, so i dont see why you wouldnt just use 32 bit 7 for semi retro gaming. people are also trying to pass off core 2 quad systems as retro and scalp them, where as a skylake optiplex is basically done depreciating and is worthess
>>107824331x86 compatible 64 bit was amd's victory lap as intel was giving up on using netburst in mobile applications and losing the desktop cpu speed race. if you go back into those forums you'll see them calling dual cores and hyperthreading a gimmick too
>>107824351The computer I want to use is 64-bit, so I wanted to use it to it's potential while still running a relatively lightweight OS. Unfortunately, it seems Microsoft and their infinite stupidity has cause me to forfeit using the glory of XP for this :(>>107824363Lol, it's already annoying enough that my Intel Core 2 Duo computer just happens to not have hyperthreading.
>>107824443what are you wanting to use it for anon? there's not going to be an OS light enough to make browsing the web usable on that system
>>107823507For a brief moment, many people did believe Itanium would replace x86.
>>107823385XP x64 was really niche and not officially supported by much software and hardware. It was just server 2003 x64 but with XP interface and software. A lot of software did work but software compatibility was still the biggest hurdle. Older stuff either was 16bit and didn't work at all or they were 32bit and couldn't handle the 4GB+ memory or had some other compatibility issue. (I remember counterstrike source just wouldn't run if you had 4GB ram in your PC with xp x64, you had to remove a stick for it to boot up lol)
>>107824471>what are you wanting to use it for anon?Retro gaming.>there's not going to be an OS light enough to make browsing the web usable on that systemI haven't even told you any other specs of the computer, but I've ran lower spec computers from the early 2000s that could browse the internet just fine, even youtube. I also used one for modern visual novels from itch.io.
>>107824514I guess they did, or else they wouldn't have wasted money on it.
>>107824546The fact that people were apparently still coding their shit in 16-bit in the 2000s is absurd, especially since that was on its way out in the Windows 9x days.There's almost no reason 32-bit Windows 10 should've even been 16-bit compatible by this point.
>>107824546>(I remember counterstrike source just wouldn't run if you had 4GB ram in your PC with xp x64, you had to remove a stick for it to boot up lol)"Guys, this PC is too powerful for us, we can't run!"If only it was how it was in the good ol' DOS days, where if your computer had a high processor speed, the game would just straight up run unplayably fast, lol.
>>107824549for XP I'd buy a hd4870, windows 7 a 750ti, you arent going to see much utility in going faster than that,
>>107824095from the archives
>>107823385XP64 often lacked driver support and syatems usually didn't have the ability to address enough RAM to benefit from a 64 bit OS. 64 bit software uses more RAM so if you can't use more than 4GB RAM due to hardware limitations then it's better to use 32 bit software.
>>107824707Nice.
>>107823491>It's only a problem if you're running a 32-bit computer.First of all, no plenty of 64 bit machines had other hardware limitations that prevented them from using 4 GB or more of RAM.Second, he meant that no one in 2005 would ever actually use more than 4GB even if their machines supported it.
>>107824766There wouldn't have been said hardware limitations if they were able to install a 64-bit OS on a 64-bit computer, only software limitations due to people not making anything for it.
>>107823385Man I ran 7 32bit on AM3 for some time>>107823412Couldn't even install 3GB without it dropping down to 333754 was cucked beyond belief
>>107824789>>107824800Sorry, was still typing.What kind of other hardware limitations, specifically?
>>107823547You could use RAM over PCI as a RAMdrive, but it would be much slower than system RAM, would share the bus with every other PCI device, and was treated the same as storage. It was functionally no different from putting swap on an SSD.
>>107824808Swap? Don't you mean... a "page file"?... :3
>>107824281R9 290x with modded drivers. HD 7970 with unmodded drivers.
>>107823412but the cool thing is, you can install modern linux from year 2025 to a 754 board which was from 2003 (?)altough GPU would be a problem since many boards probably have AGP 8x? AGP support has been dropped from linuxalso several GPUs older than 15 years, have lost support for anything except basic VGA functions up to resolution 1024x768
>>107824351Deus Ex needs a bunch of patches to work on 7, but runs natively on XP no problem
>>107824808Reminds me of the time someone told me that not clearing VRChat's game cache would apparently make it run slower despite using an SSD, lol. Cause we all know how big of an issue fragmentation is with SSDs, amirite?...
>>107824331Athlon 64 destroyed Pentium 4 in performance. The 64 bit was just a gimmick at the time.
>>107824471Nta, but I regularly browse the web on a socket 478 Pentium 4 and its usable.
>>107824585Backwards compatibility is nice to have when you need to run old software. 32 bit nt basically had a built in dosbox for 16 bit programs.
>>107823519>939 sometimes had 4You'd be hard pressed to find a 939 board that DIDN'T have 4.
>>107824906But that doesn't mean they should keep making *new* software the old way.
>>107824626A 780 still has utility if you really want to push resolution.
>>107823714>Why the hell did they even make the 32-bit browser the default one?...Firefox was 32bit till like 2017 or some shit
>>107824800No, a lot of chipsets supported 64 but integers, but not the full 64 bit address space. >>107824806A lot of chipsets lacked the ability to address large amounts of ram. I have an Atom that maxes out at 2GB and a couple Core 2 Duo laptops that max out at 4 GB.
>>107824281>What about with AMD?The latest AMD card you'd actually want to use with official driver support is HD7970. It's also the only way to get proper high framerate support.Nvidia doesn't support higher bandwidth DisplayPort on XP even with cards that have hardware support for it, so you're stuck at a max of something like 2560x1440@100hz. Meanwhile AMD cards will happily do 2560x1440@165hz, even though it can be a bit fiddly to get it set up sometimes.
>>107824943But migga, Internet Explorer was 64-bit in at least 2009, and it was apparently "that" hard for them to just make that one the default, instead?...
>>107824840it can be patched to work, where as even a lot of games for windows 7 dont work on windows 10, with no patches or fixes to speak of >>107824928unfortunately people think a 780ti is usable for modern gaming and the prices have surged, im not spending $150 for a retro gaming card
>>107824838>AGP support has been dropped from linuxYou have a source on that? Like a link to the patch notes of the version that dropped support.
>>107824926Correct, but you said there was no reason for backwards compatibility, which is what I was disagreeing with.
>>107824943>>107824963*on a 64-bit computer, that is.There is no reason why Microsoft should've made the default version of Internet Explorer that is linked to all the shortcuts the 32-bit version in 64-bit Windows 7, instead of "Internet Explorer (64-bit)".
>>107824985nta but with whatever ubuntu version started using kernel 3.x, acceleration stopped working on my x300 radeon, he may be confused between agp and legacy fglrx
>>107824982>where as even a lot of games for windows 7 dont work on windows 10, with no patches or fixes to speak of You have any examples? >780tiI said 780, as in a regular 780, not the ti model. Those can be had for <$50. If you buy a ti gpu you're paying for the name, the 750 ti has the same problem, its twice the cost of a 650 or 750 while not having twice the performance. Two 780s in SLI are cheaper and faster than a single 780 ti.
>>107824985I mean default support is no moreYou need to be able to change your kernel to support it, if you arent good with linux at all, this of course may be a disasterAnywayhttps://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/tree/arch/x86/configs/x86_64_defconfigput:CONFIG_AGP=yCONFIG_AGP_AMD64=yCONFIG_AGP_INTEL=y(you can disable AMD or Intel but not both if you want to use AGP, because your motherboard will be either AMD or Intel, there is no alternative, use the one appropriate in your case, OR enable both if you wish there should be no harm done when both are enabled)config agp (without mentioning amd or intel) is the general toggle that AGP is on or off, if this is off, it doesnt matter if the other two are enabled they wont be because the top line is read first and will be disabled then
>>107823385this idiot didn't know, that no one use XP 64 bit. and no software can run on xp 64 bit.
>>107824998All I was saying was that in 2015 when Windows 10 came out, 16-bit compatibility was already depreciated.And it was even worse for XP x64, because of some 32-bit programs apparently still using 16-bit installers. Whoever coded those were actually retarded.>But guys, I dont wanna re-make the installer!TOUGH FUCKING SHIT! This is the reason why the 32-bit integer limit is still gonna become a massive problem in 12 years.
>>107824928>keklerR9 290Xdumb niggerActually get a fucking RX 580 for pennies
>>107825040Wouldn't this be highly distro dependent? Surely you'd be using a distro targeting legacy hardware which would have those switches on by default if you were going to use such a system.
>>10782338520 years later still why, you bitch
>>107825050This idiot didn't know that he wanted to figure out *WHY NOT*!
>>107825062you are correct but I have no idea which distros have this enabled by default and many mainstream linuces like Debian, Ubuntu, Suse etc have it disabled by default
>>107825066you have to be 18 or older to use this website
>>107825028>You have any examples?Not him, but I know that S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Clear Sky wouldn't run due to the DRM being broken on newer versions of Windows. There's probably a patch for that though, but I just used an older computer for it. Aside from the fact there was an annoying crash loop forcing me to download an official patch for the game on some random ass place on the internet that actually had the file I needed to fix that instead.
>>107825061Damn, those are cheap. Admittedly I haven't kept up with the Windows 7 side of things, I mainly know the 780 because of its XP compatibility. Though with that rx 580, driver compatibility does worry me a bit. How well do its drivers play with old games?Also, maybe I should pick up a second 290 for crossfire.
>>107825065What is wrong with you, Tim Cook?
>>107825088Yes, so you get the fuck out!
>>107825040>(you can disable AMD or Intel but not both if you want to use AGP, because your motherboard will be either AMD or Intel, there is no alternativeWhat happens if I found an alternative?
>>107825028mass effect 3 retail has problems addressing large amounts of memory, which is very common, but no one seems to give a shit enough to fix the more obscure titles with these problems. Far Cry 3 has a number of game breaking problems i havent been able to fix other than just playing a crack on my old system
>>107823385Because 64-bit XP was an abomination without drivers or updates, and most people had 4GB of RAM or less so it didn't make any difference. I never even looked at upgrading from XP until 7 came about.
>>107825074I don't either, but I do know I wouldn't use Debian or Ubuntu on a system of that age. I'd use something like Antix or Q4OS.
>>107825028ah, im not privy with this stuff anymore, i just give a shit long enough to not get screwed building a pc and move on. my w7 rig is a optiplex 790 sff with a i3, 4gb, and gt 730 2gb, pieced all of it together from dumpster diving
>>107825156Most people in 2005 didn't even have up to 4GB of RAM, lol.
>>107825149>>107825149I have no idea if it would workSome Via CPUs had a ITX/mATX motherboard in early 2000s and a AGP slot.But will Linux support it? No idea.Safest guess is you need to try whether it works as a Intel or as a AMD better. (disable the other one from kernel)
>>107825183Yeah I'm pretty sure I had like a GB.
>>107825223Having 4GB in 2005 was like having 128GB nowadays.Maybe not literally, but it was the maximum anything could support. The only difference was you still couldn't run like 30 programs at once with max RAM back then.
>>107825177You should consider getting a pair of r7 250s. They're dirt cheap, can be run in crossfire, and individually outperform your 730.
>>107824331Maybe not in the consumer level yet but I'm pretty sure that High Performance Computing and enterprise servers were already pushing past the 4gb barrier or were just about to. In that field, x86-64 was a big deal as, the Opteron line (the server and workstation variant of Athlon 64) allowed a much more seamless transition from x86 than something like Itanium.
>>107825296i had a r7 250 in a trash picked 9020 sff, it was a stuttering mess as was the hd 3470 and 5450 ive owned for a long time and mistakenly bought new. i dont have a high opinion of low end ati cards
>>107825785In what game? Anyways what makes these good is that they're performant for cheap low profile cards. If you have a full height case, its better to get an old high end gpu.
>>107825836the r7 250 had problems in gta 4, far cry 2, red faction guerilla, the 5450 had the enormously repulsive performance of stuttering in midtown madness 2 and i disposed of it immediately. the 3470 stuttered in half life 2 and its mods from the day i bought it, i disposed of it recently though
>>107825954I don't know about the rest of those, but I've never had any problems with hl2.
>>107826043i dont really like keeping a bunch of desktops around or spending money to fuck with it, i have a hp-15 laptop with the 3250u i plan on digging out to trial with windows 7 as i found out some people are doing that, but i dont hold high hopes as the vega 3 already sucks in the previous trials ive done
>>107823385i still dont understand x86 x64 when downloading/installing software. always get x64 or what ? qhy do ppl include x86 if it's obsolete
>>107826283Because it's not obsolete and many computer still operate in x86 natively.
>>107823385There was no user demand for 64 bit Windows XP. Few computers had 4GB or more RAM in the range of 2001-2007 which is when XP was still relevant.I have a workstation laptop from 2007 and it's still configured with only 2GB of RAM. CPU isn't even 64 bit. (Core Duo)
>>107826283Always get x64 unless your system can't run it, x86 versions are only for backwards compatibility.Why do they still exist?Maybe someone still uses an ancient PC as a NAS or something.I think in Japan for example loads of people still run old 32 bit computers because their philosophy is to never throw out something that still works.
>>107824471My Athlon 64 X2 doesn't really have any problems surfing the modern web. His C2D should shit on my chip.
>>107828139what browser and os are you using? my 8250u starts to lag a lot with more than 3 tabs
>>107825149>What happens if I found an alternative?It's be extremely painful...
>>107824615>where if your computer had a high processor speed, the game would just straight up run unplayably fast, lol.Ah, Good Ol' Grand Theft Auto 1-2.
>>107828368I'm using Firefox w/ uBlock Origin on Linux Mint.
>>107824214You have to get the hardware specifically with the idea of using XP x64. Software wise I've had zero issues.
>>107826705> 2007 which is when XP was still relevant.2007 was still win2k era. XP era started in like 2010.
>>107823385Because there was no point to 64 bit XP unless you had over 4 GB RAM, which very few people did back then. Unless you had a need for it, all it did was cause incompatibilities with hardware that only had 32 bit drivers, and use more RAM.For a more egregious example, look at how long 386 PCs were sold with real mode DOS.
